More Global Warmist lying sacks of shit

[Seth]

Daily Caller News Foundation
Polar bear twin cubs are seen in Vienna
Scientists Admit Polar Bear Numbers Were Made Up To ‘Satisfy Public Demand’
3:02 PM 05/30/2014

Michael Bastasch

This may come as a shocker to some, but scientists are not always right — especially when under intense public pressure for answers.

Researchers with the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) recently admitted to experienced zoologist and polar bear specialist Susan Crockford that the estimate given for the total number of polar bars in the Arctic was “simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand.”

Crockford has been critical of official polar bear population estimates because they fail to include five large subpopulations of polar bears. Due to the uncertainty of the populations in these areas, PBSG did not include them in their official estimate — but the polar bear group did include other subpopulation estimates.

PBSG has for years said that global polar bear populations were between 20,000 and 25,000, but these estimates are likely much lower than how many polar bears are actually living in the world.

“Based on previous PBSG estimates and other research reports, it appears there are probably at least another 6,000 or so bears living in these regions and perhaps as many as 9,000 (or more) that are not included in any PBSG ‘global population estimate,’” Crockford wrote on her blog.

“These are guesses, to be sure, but they at least give a potential size,” Crockford added.

PBSG disclosed this information to Crockford ahead of the release of their Circumpolar Polar Bear Action Plan in which they intend to put a footnote explaining why their global population estimate is flawed.

“As part of past status reports, the PBSG has traditionally estimated a range for the total number of polar bears in the circumpolar Arctic,” PBSG says in its proposed footnote. “Since 2005, this range has been 20-25,000. It is important to realize that this range never has been an estimate of total abundance in a scientific sense, but simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand.”

“It is also important to note that even though we have scientifically valid estimates for a majority of the subpopulations, some are dated,” PBSG continues. “Furthermore, there are no abundance estimates for the Arctic Basin, East Greenland, and the Russian subpopulations.”

“Consequently, there is either no, or only rudimentary, knowledge to support guesses about the possible abundance of polar bears in approximately half the areas they occupy,” says PBSG. “Thus, the range given for total global population should be viewed with great caution as it cannot be used to assess population trend over the long term.”

PBSG’s admission also comes after academics and government regulators have touted their polar bear population estimates to show that polar bear numbers have grown since the 1960s. PBSG estimates have also been used to show that polar bear populations have stabilized over the last 30 years.

Polar bear populations became the centerpiece of the effort to fight global warming due to claims that melting polar ice caps would cause the bears to become endangered in the near future. Years ago, some scientists predicted the Arctic would be virtually ice free by now.

Polar bears became the first species listed under the Endangered Species Act because they could potentially be harmed by global warming. But some recent studies have found that some polar bear subpopulations have actually flourished in recent years.

“So, the global estimates were… ‘simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand’ and according to this statement, were never meant to be considered scientific estimates, despite what they were called, the scientific group that issued them, and how they were used,” Crockford said.

“All this glosses over what I think is a critical point: none of these ‘global population estimates’ (from 2001 onward) came anywhere close to being estimates of the actual world population size of polar bears (regardless of how scientifically inaccurate they might have been) — rather, they were estimates of only the subpopulations that Arctic biologists have tried to count,” she added.

[Blind groper]

Big Deal!!!!

Population numbers in the wild have always been estimates. There is absolutely nothing new in this. Nor has the exact number of polar bears got anything to do with the urgency with which we should treat the need to mitigate global warming.

[JimC]

Poles have the right to bear arms!

[macdoc]

Pretty much nothing to do with climate change.

No question changes in the Arctic are massive.

Baked Alaska anyone??

Photos: A Race Defined by Snow Finds Itself With Little ...
http://www.nytimes.com/.../new-enduranc ... ishes-from...
Apr 1, 2014 - Temperatures topped 60 degrees this year during the Iditarod Trail ... “Alaska is already seeing many signs of climate change and will be ...

Warm Winter Turns Iditarod Trail Into 'Minefield' With 'No Snow'

Mar 4, 2014 - The Iditarod, the annual sled-dog race across 975 miles of Alaska, ... Climate Reanalyzer™ Climate Change Institute, University of Maine, USA

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/0 ... ield-snow/

but don't let reality get in the way of a good denier rant.

Combining all of those outliers for one global or regional average air temperature shows how even an extended cold snap in parts of the world does not even neutralize warmer-than-average temperatures across the globe. With some record cold temperatures being recorded on March 4, 2014, the world is still 0.11°C warmer than the 1979-2000 baseline on that day. Much of this extra heat is in the Arctic, which was 3.94°C warmer than usual.
UPDATE
The Anchorage Daily News has a photo stream of Day 3 of the race that shows how little snow cover is on the Iditarod trail. As of Tuesday, 10 mushers have left the race — most due to injuries caused by poor trail conditions.

[pErvinalia]

[JimC]

Love the graphic, rEv...

[JimC]

The thing is, I think that Libertarians are caught in an ideological trap, which forces them to be deniers. If they admitted that the world was indeed heading in a dangerous direction due to global warming, then they would have to admit that only sustained, cooperative action with the world's governments working very hard together, and applying regulatory controls to the global market would have a chance to fix the problem.

Sheer anathema...

[Hermit]

The thing is, I think that Libertarians are caught in an ideological trap, which forces them to be deniers. If they admitted that the world was indeed heading in a dangerous direction due to global warming, then they would have to admit that only sustained, cooperative action with the world's governments working very hard together, and applying regulatory controls to the global market would have a chance to fix the problem.

No trap at all. Lolbertardians will argue that if the world was indeed heading in a dangerous direction due to global warming, then individuals would voluntarily do everything to affect the necessary changes. Simple, really. Adapt or die, see?

[piscator]

Well it just makes sense that sensitive Libertarians would be the first to sense that their intensive energies were indeed necessary for the good of all. Look at Galt's Gulch, were the perceptive movers and shakers, the true giants of the world, got together to precipitate the sort of collective starvation that only middlemen could truly effectuate.
It's a damn shame Ayn Rand never finished Anthem, the story of the aftermath of John Galt and rise of the Individual - the next human evolutionary step.

[Tero]

There is reliable data for about half the areas
http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_w ... opulation/

quit cut and pasting shit, Seth
unless you had something to say of your own

we already know some alarmists are more alarming than the rest

[pErvinalia]

[Warren Dew]

Why not both?

[Seth]

tldr

What is most likely is that the useful idiots of Warmism (like rEv and MacDoc) are being thoroughly propagandized and indoctrinated into false beliefs and fear by those who wish to control them and aggregate power by using a grain of truth to leaven an enormous loaf of shit that's intended to hornswoggle and terrify the credulous proles into obedience.

Where does all that eco-money and government "research" money go anyway? Follow the money and you find it ends up in George Soros' and his ilk's pockets, the pockets of government functionaries and politicians, and the pockets of "scientists" who need to publish or perish and who understand that Warmist denialism is heresy and that the butter lies on the Warmist canon side of the bread.

[Seth]

There is reliable data for about half the areas

quit cut and pasting shit, Seth
unless you had something to say of your own

Hey, they said it just fine, so I'll cut and paste as much as I like.

[Seth]

The thing is, I think that Libertarians are caught in an ideological trap, which forces them to be deniers. If they admitted that the world was indeed heading in a dangerous direction due to global warming, then they would have to admit that only sustained, cooperative action with the world's governments working very hard together, and applying regulatory controls to the global market would have a chance to fix the problem.

Sheer anathema...

Not at all. What's required is credible science combined with credible solutions designed to produce the desired result on a voluntary basis that does not require the initiation of force or fraud to achieve, none of which currently exist.

Warmism is being used as a tool of economic oppression of the wealthy by the less-wealthy collectivists and as a tool of power and control of the grand conspiracy for one-world government run by the likes of Soros under the guise of collectivist ideology.

When Warmists come up with real solutions to actual problems that will work and not bankrupt the industrialized world that are designed to deal effectively with undesirable environmental impacts that may last for centuries without screaming hysterically about short-term knee-jerk politically-motivated "solutions" that won't do a fucking thing to change anything but the balance of political and economic power, I'll pay attention.

All you have to do is convince me that this is not simply a charade and cover for a worldwide authoritarian collectivist government coup and that my participation is both actually useful, actually necessary, and scientifically valid enough to persuade me to cooperate voluntarily rather than coercing my participation by using both force AND fraud, then I'll participate.

But so long as the obvious agenda has nothing whatever to do with any climate change issue that humans can in fact do anything about and has everything to do with collectivism, money, power and control, y'all can go fuck yourselves and freeze to death in the dark. Me, I'm gonna continue to stockpile enough resources to allow me to live out my life in comfort and I'm going to produce all the CO2 and pollution it takes to achieve that goal and remove any obstacles to my continued survival that I may find in my way.